HD Music

[GregW]

OK, here's the video from Youtube.

 

[Basil]

Very thorough explanation. It would suggest that a track ripped at 128 kbps / 44.1kHz should sound no different than the same track in HD. I can tell you, however, that the HD track sounds much clearer (less noise) and more stage presence than the same track at the lower bit/sample rate. Perhaps 192/24 is overkill (Most of my HD tracks are at a lower rate than that). The bottom line for me is, when played on the right player (I've gat a FiiO X5) the HD tracks of the same song in HD FLAC format sound much better than the .MP3 files I can get from iTunes.
I have songs in both formats and with the HD I hear subtile differences that make the music seem much more "alive" - almost as if I'm sitting in the studio with the performer. Now, he said 192/24 is silly. I can't disagree with that, which is why the HD tracks I've bought are at a lower bit rate than that, but still higher then the iTunes .MP3 files.
When I listen to samples of the HD songs at 96/24channel vs 192/24, I can't hear any discernible difference, so I get the lower 96/24 versions and am quite happy. The same songs from iTunes Store at their standard .MP3 file sounds "ok" but when compared to the HD tracks, well, the HD tracks just sound much better. Whether that is due to the sample rate or the bit rate, or something else doesn't matter to me, only that the lossless FLAC files sound much better.

UPDATE: When I compared P Floyd's DSOM between the 44.1Hz Apple Lossless and the HD 96/24 versions, I was listening to the 44.1 version (which I ripped myself from the CD) on my computer via iTunes, but the higher rate on the FIIO X5. When I put the 44.1 version on the X5, the difference, while there, isn't as dramatic. (There is some difference, but if push came to shove, I'd be happy either way). This suggests that the important factor here may be the DAC/sound chip being used (My Mac's DAC/Sound card vs that found in the X5, which is specifically designed for higher rate files). It also suggests that anything above 44.1 (e.g., Apple lossless) might be overkill. Certainly 192Hz is overkill, no question.

 

[GregW]

Very thorough explanation. It would suggest that a track ripped at 128 kbps / 44.1kHz should sound no different than the same track in HD.

A CD plays back at 150kb/s, so yeah it would be close. 128kb MP3s, however, are usually massively compressed.

I can tell you, however, that the HD track sounds much clearer (less noise) and more stage presence than the same track at the lower bit/sample rate...I have songs in both formats and with the HD I hear subtile differences that make the music seem much more "alive" - almost as if I'm sitting in the studio with the performer.

There has been a thing called the "Loudness War" going on for decades now. What happens is the quieter parts of a song are increased in volume while the peaks are reduced (or clipped). Then the whole signal is bumped up to where it just starts to distort. This makes the whole song louder, but it removes the headroom, making the song sound flat and less vibrant. If you've ever played guitar with a compressor/ sustainer, you'll know the effect. Pluck a string and instead of hearing a sharp attack with a gradual decay, the string comes on at one volume and stays there for a longer time, then suddenly shuts off.

What I think is happening is a remix of the original recording without all the compression (not compression in the file size MP3 sense.) So the dynamic range comes back with little or no work and the recording sounds more "natural". Your DSOM CD may have had more compression when released than the FLAC version of today.

Have you tried ripping a 44.1 from the FLAC? How does that compare?

 

[Mickey Richaud]

Y'all are way over my head here (so what else is new? :confuse. But the absolute best, most stunning recording I've ever heard is a record album I used to demo stereo systems back in my Radio Shack days (mid- to late-'70's). Still have it, in fact, and it sounds just as fantastic as it did back in the day. It's a direct to vinyl recording by Lincoln Mayorga. With decent equipment - not necessarily top of the line - you'd swear you were right in the middle of the orchestra. Unbelievable presence. I've never heard its equal. Period.

 

[GregW]

Y'all are way over my head here (so what else is new? :confuse.

An example of what I'm talking about is watching a theatrical movie on TV. The movie is uncompressed, so you adjust the volume to that. Then a ridiculously loud commercial comes on.

But the absolute best, most stunning recording I've ever heard is a record album I used to demo stereo systems back in my Radio Shack days (mid- to late-'70's). Still have it, in fact, and it sounds just as fantastic as it did back in the day. It's a direct to vinyl recording by Lincoln Mayorga. With decent equipment - not necessarily top of the line - you'd swear you were right in the middle of the orchestra. Unbelievable presence. I've never heard its equal. Period.

I have an audio DVD from Blue Man Group. I only really like one of the songs, but mixed in Dolby 5.1, it sounds pretty amazing. Which that format had taken off.

 

[judow]

Okay, it's over my head as well. My best memory of precise sound was 'quadraphonic' and the bee going around the room. When music played I guess I just didn't have a good ear. It sounded great but certainly not like that bee. As I watched the video what I did notice was when he was on the right of the screen, the sound came from my right speaker. (Oh, oh he just used the a$$ word). Likewise the same for the left speaker/position in the video. There were also times when I heard both speakers. I'm waiting to see if he gets to digital HD. Okay, watched the whole video. Not sure what I learned if anything. Band width/bandlimiation is confusing. Square wave, quantization with dither, all foreign to me. What I did know for sure is his position and my desk speakers were synced and when he was in the middle or there was just music I heard both speakers. Liked the music, rocked in my chair. So much for my input. The video was over my head and below my feet. :confuse: